I have a strange issue with the gtk-bounce program - on (k)ubuntu 12.10, spectrum and waveform work just fine, but if I scroll into the gtk-bounce panel, the cursor disappears. Anyone seen that behaviour? - Julf

I have a strange issue with the gtk-bounce program - on (k)ubuntu 12.10, spectrum and waveform work just fine, but if I scroll into the gtk-bounce panel, the cursor disappears. Anyone seen that behaviour? - Julf

−

One issue I'm not sure you have covered, relates content with short, loud sections (e.g. more like classical music, less like pop music).

+

One issue I'm not sure you have covered, relates content with short, loud sections (e.g. more like a movie or maybe classical music, less like pop music).

I understand that that a 10dB change in sound level is perceived as twice as loud.

I understand that that a 10dB change in sound level is perceived as twice as loud.

−

Lets say we have some content where one section is 4 times (20dB) louder than the rest.

+

Lets say we have some content where one section is 4 times (20dB) louder than the rest (not unreasonable - that is the difference between a conversation and street noise according to [http://www.acousticalsurfaces.com/acoustic_IOI/101_4.htm| this page]).

If each extra bit adds 6dB of dynamic range, then the quiter sections will effectively be quantized using roughly 3 fewer bits than the louder section (e.g. 13bits rather than 16bits).

If each extra bit adds 6dB of dynamic range, then the quiter sections will effectively be quantized using roughly 3 fewer bits than the louder section (e.g. 13bits rather than 16bits).

+

If the majority of the content relatively quite (ie. being quantized using 13bits or less depending on how quiet relative to the peaks) then is it really fair to claim "16bit quality" for the entire piece of conetnet?

Is this a real problem?? Is this ever an audible?

Is this a real problem?? Is this ever an audible?

−

--Klod 12 March 2013

+

[[User:Klodj|Klodj]] 21:59, 11 March 2013 (PDT)

Revision as of 21:59, 11 March 2013

Greetings, Feel free to comment here— just log in to edit— or join us on IRC chat.

The wiki version of the video isn't yet as complete as the last video, due to schedules and timelines. In particular I think it could use some more going-deeper coverage. I'm surprised that I couldn't better HTML5 audio api examples of the "type your own JS, get audio and a scope" kind, if anyone knows of a better one than the one we have now that would be great.

Just dropping a line to say thank you! I'm continually impressed by the guides and overall outreach coming out of the xiph team. The latest video was a great introduction that managed to walk that fine line between theory and application without falling over or flailing about madly (in my opinion, anyway). Not to mention, I'm going through the gtk-bounce and waveform code now and really like it! It's not so trivial a piece of software as to be meaningless when learning to code useful applications, but it's not so gigantic as to be unapproachable either. Hell, I think it would serve as a great example for the GNOME folks to use in their documentation. Most guides on GTK just have you draw shapes on the screen and leave it at that. All in all, I'm really impressed and hope to have a similar setup replicated in a few weeks at my university, just for the sake of it.

Some parts are better written than others... I used enough cut & paste to warn against taking it too seriously :-) --Xiphmont 10:50, 28 February 2013 (PST)

@Monty: Thanks for these information. And as a non-native English speaker I want to thank you for your clear pronunciation.
What did you mean with "no one ever ruined a great recording by not dithering the final master."? Do you mean, that nobody ever would forget it, or that it was not ruinous?
That "CSS is awesome"-cup made me really nervous. I hope it means something like "Cascading Style Sheets", and not, what would fit better in this context, "Content Scramble System"[shudder]!
--Akf 15:20, 27 February 2013 (PST)

I meant that "not adding dither is not ruinous". I recall in at least one listening test on the subject, a minority of participants had a statistically significant preference for undithered versions, at least on those samples where it was in fact audible and the testers were encouraged to increase gain and listen to fade-outs. *However* I can't find the results of that test now that I've gone back to look for it, so my memory may be faulty. I've asked the HA folks to help me find it again if it really existed :-)

I once built an 8-bit ADC from transistors, for experimentation. One strange result was how few bits are needed for speech. 8kHz with just one bit resolution is still quite intelligible (though rather noisy). --RichardNeill 08:08, 4 March 2013 (PST)

Thanks for these resources! One question: In the vid, you mention the Gibbs phenomenon. Is that in any way related to the Fourier uncertainty principle? These days, in various audio-related forums, people throw this Oppenheim and Magnasco (2013) paper entitled "Human hearing beats the Fourier uncertainty principle" around in response to your 24/192 article. Does the paper qualify any of the results presented in the video and/or your 24/192 article? (Just fixed the reference.) Lenfaki 13:14, 28 February 2013 (PST)

it is related to the fourier uncertainty principle in that all of these effects are in some way related by the same math. As for the "Human hearing beats the Fourier uncertainty principle" paper floating around, a) the headline is effectively wrong, b) the effect described as 'newly discovered' has been understood for roughly 100 years, this merely adds some new hard measurements to the data set, c) the Gabor limit does not even apply to the detection task they're describing. So either the authors or their editor are partly confused. There's been a decent discussion of it at Hydrogen Audio, with none other than James Johnston and Ethan Winer weighing in. --Xiphmont 10:50, 28 February 2013 (PST)

You talk about discrete values (whether the analog sample points, or the infinitesimal image pixels). BUT, these are in some way, averages. In a digital camera, the pixel value is the integral across about 90% of the pixel-pitch. In analog audio, is it an instantaneous sample, or an average over the preceding sample-interval, or is it sometimes even more "blurred" than that? Also, when performing DAC, how do we get rid of the stairstep so perfectly without distortion? --RichardNeill 07:51, 4 March 2013 (PST)

What's the correct way to plot a reconstructed waveform? If I have an array of samples and play them back through a DAC, the oscilloscope shows a smooth curve. But plotting them with eg matplotlib shows a stairstep. Thanks --RichardNeill 07:58, 4 March 2013 (PST)

I have a strange issue with the gtk-bounce program - on (k)ubuntu 12.10, spectrum and waveform work just fine, but if I scroll into the gtk-bounce panel, the cursor disappears. Anyone seen that behaviour? - Julf

One issue I'm not sure you have covered, relates content with short, loud sections (e.g. more like a movie or maybe classical music, less like pop music).
I understand that that a 10dB change in sound level is perceived as twice as loud.
Lets say we have some content where one section is 4 times (20dB) louder than the rest (not unreasonable - that is the difference between a conversation and street noise according to this page).
If each extra bit adds 6dB of dynamic range, then the quiter sections will effectively be quantized using roughly 3 fewer bits than the louder section (e.g. 13bits rather than 16bits).
If the majority of the content relatively quite (ie. being quantized using 13bits or less depending on how quiet relative to the peaks) then is it really fair to claim "16bit quality" for the entire piece of conetnet?
Is this a real problem?? Is this ever an audible?
Klodj 21:59, 11 March 2013 (PDT)